Steve, I've read your linked articles, and they contain no referenced extra-biblical scientific evidence for the real problems with the stories.
For example, one of the articles goes into great detail counting all of the different species and whether or not they would survive a flood, at least mentioning which scientist they got their numbers from...
When it comes time to explain how the animals got on the ark, or how they were taken care of by only eight people, the writers resort to lines like "Some have suggested this may have involved the origin of animal migratory instincts or, at least, an intensification of it." and "It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. With their bodily functions reduced to a minimum, the burden of their care would have been greatly lightened."
Of course, the article also discusses the use of BABY DINOSAURS instead of adults to conserve space on the ark. If you can find any "extra-biblical scientific data" for dinosaurs and humans cohabitating the planet I would like to see it...
First of all, these are ridiculous suppositions at best. Secondly, to reiterate what some said above, you need to ask yourself, who are the some in "some have suggested" or when "it has been said" who said it. Without references and some sort of evidence or studies, this is beyond meaningless.
And by the way, the links you list for extra-biblical evidence for the creation story - they split the evidence into two sections: "INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS" and "EVIDENCE FROM THE REST OF THE BIBLE." I wouldn't use that again as "extra-biblical scientific data", since it is not extra-biblical, and certainly not scientific.
Though, as AIG says, "Scientists agree that legends are almost always based on facts, not just pure imagination."
"Almost always", eh....
™ Version 4.2